No Decision Made In Zoning Conflict

Appeals Board Hears Arguments Involving Land Coverage Rules

January 15, 2004|By CLAUDIA VAN NES; Courant Staff Writer

OLD SAYBROOK — The changes Murray Boutilier made to his Vincent Avenue home that infuriated neighbors and brought the attention of zoning officials were done more than three years ago -- too long ago for the town to take any action against him.

This was the argument Boutilier's attorney, John Bennet, made to the zoning board of appeals Wednesday night.

The town cited Boutilier, a recently elected alternate on the appeals board, for winterizing a summer home and possibly installing a well and enlarging a septic system. The appeals board did not address these violations Wednesday night because, Chairman Rex McCall said, they were not within his board's purview.

The appeals board did consider whether Boutilier violated zoning regulations regarding land coverage, as zoning enforcement officer Chris Costa said he did when she issued a cease and desist order in November.

The board did not make a decision on the matter Wednesday night as arguments went late into the evening.

Bennet argued that his client did, with permission from the building department, raise his home along with his porch and deck in 1999, actually knocking off a carport and making seemingly few other alterations. He did move a shed on the property but reduced its size, Bennet said.

Whether Boutilier needed certificates of zoning compliance for this work is moot, Bennet said, because state law says the property becomes legally nonconforming if no enforcement action is taken within three years.

Attorney Mark Branse, who represented Costa, said the three-year statute of limitations applies to cases in which property setbacks come into play. Costa did not cite setback violations in this case. Her cease and desist order is based on land coverage violations. The lot coverage allowed in the Saybrook Manor beach neighborhood where Vincent Avenue is located is 20 percent. Boutilier's coverage, at 26 percent of his tiny lot, exceeds the limit, according to Costa.

Attorney Peter Sipples, representing the appeals board, said the law concerning the three-year statute of limitations in regard to the question of lot coverage is unclear. ``You could eventually be making case law,'' he suggested to the appeals panel.

However, Branse argued, regardless of whether the limitation applies, Boutilier should have initially taken out certificates of compliance to alter his porch, move his shed and rebuild a deck.

Those permits require a site plan and are designed not just to pick up possible zoning violations but flood plain, health code, wetlands and building problems, all of which the property has, according to Branse and town enforcement officials.